[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5650-H5652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2115
                          REVIEWING THE BASICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I met with a group of 
Nebraskans, as we do every week. It's called the Nebraska Breakfast. 
It's about a 70-year tradition that we have here in the Congress where 
the House Members and the Senators get together. We've been doing that 
decade after decade. It's a wonderful way to welcome people to 
Washington and one of the highlights of our week. What we do as a 
delegation is talk about the issues of the day and hear from our 
constituents as well.
  This morning, Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be important to just 
review a few basics. Some of the terminology and some of the language 
that we throw around here with great ease is often, I think, 
disconnected from people out there in the country--words and phrases 
like continuing resolutions; the Affordable Care Act, known as 
ObamaCare; sequestration, and debt limits. The reason that I point all 
this out is there is a convergence of all of these factors right now 
that is creating the great debate and this moment of drama in the 
United States Congress.
  So let's take those one at a time.
  First of all, the continuing resolution. What does that mean? Well, 
each year, if it worked in an ideal fashion and a proper fashion, the 
President submits a budget to Congress. Congress can take that budget 
up or not. The House passes a budget. The Senate passes its own budget. 
The two are reconciled. We set a budgetary goal, and then the 
appropriations committees go to work on various aspects of funding the 
government, whether that's the Defense Department, military services, 
labor and health and human services, transportation, financial, 
agriculture support, and the rest of the so-called appropriations 
bills. Basically, the budget sets up a fence and then the 
appropriations bills divide up how that money is to be spent each year. 
That, again, is in an ideal world, which has become very broken of 
late.
  When Congress cannot seem to get a budget agreement between the House 
and Senate, we come to the end of the fiscal year, which ends this 
September, and we have to figure out a way to fund the government going 
forward or else it shuts down. When the government shuts down, there is 
the potential for planes not to fly, trains not to run, and veterans 
not to get their services. It's not a proper way to govern. It's not 
good for the country to have this uncertainty looming out there. We 
want to do everything we can to try to avoid a government shutdown 
while moving forward on fiscally responsible policies that return us to 
what we call ``regular order'' here and try to get back in place a 
system of governance that gives some proper planning horizons for the 
communities at large out there across America and brings it back into 
an orderly process here.
  So if we are not able to pass a budget, the continuing resolution is 
a vote by both the Senate and the House as to how to move forward 
either in a temporary fashion or a long-term fashion based upon what 
current government policies are.
  The frustration here is that each year of late we've been going 
through all of these difficult decisionmaking

[[Page H5651]]

processes, particularly through the appropriations process, about which 
programs are important, which are necessary public policies to help 
bring essential services to the American people, and which programs are 
older, antiquated, no longer effective and should either be reduced or 
eliminated.
  We've gone through a number of those processes this year; but because 
of the disagreements between the two bodies, because of the deep 
philosophical divide in this Chamber, we have not been able to find a 
resolution that gets us to what we call regular order--passing 
appropriations bills under a budgetary framework. So now we are faced 
with a continuing resolution--the decision as to how to fund the 
government, moving forward, either for a short term--a month or 2, 
maybe a few weeks, or even a few days--or long term.
  The continuing resolution means we just pick up government where it 
is and move it forward, basically spending the same amount of money 
that we did last year and not getting any of the reforms. So it might 
come to that, but that's an unfortunate way to govern. And I know it's 
adding cynicism, Mr. Speaker, in the American people's perspective as 
they watch this deep philosophical divide play itself out on the House 
floor and seemingly not being able to get anything constructively 
decided.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm from Nebraska. We have a saying, Let's get 'er done. 
I think that's what most Americans want. Let's find a constructive way, 
a proper and balanced way, to appropriately reduce spending in areas 
that are necessary to do so, perhaps even the right type of tax reform 
to get this fiscal house in order.
  Now why is this important? Well, we have a $600-plus billion deficit 
this year. Year after year, because we've had these deficits, we've 
piled up debt. There's now $17 trillion of debt. By some measures, it's 
approximating the size of the output of the entire economy. It's a real 
red flag.
  That's why it is so imperative that this body strive to work 
together, again, in a constructive manner, to figure out the right type 
of spending and tax policies that deliver essential services, reduce 
the overspending, increase accountability in effective and smart 
government and delivery of policy, while also having a fairer and 
simpler Tax Code. That should be the objective, and I think it is for 
most Members here. But, unfortunately, the system is working very 
dysfunctionally at the moment and we're going to be faced with 
eleventh-hour decisions as to how to fund the government in the short 
term so that it doesn't shut down. That's called the continuing 
resolution.
  Complicating that this year is the whole debate about the future of 
health care in America. A couple of years ago, the Affordable Care Act 
was passed. I did not support it. It's now known as ObamaCare. We do 
need the right type of health care reform in our country--a health care 
reform that is going to improve health care outcomes while reducing 
costs. I think most Americans are beginning to see and realize this now 
because it's hitting them and it's hurting them. Instead, what we have 
in the new health care bill is a shift to more unsustainable costs and 
an erosion of health care liberties, and a significant amount of 
Americans are experiencing not affordable care but an escalating cost 
of their premiums.
  Now, there's some components of the health care law that I think are 
reasonable; and as we move forward, we should retain them, such as 
keeping kids on health insurance up to the age of 26. I supported that 
policy before the health care bill. Removing caps on health insurance 
in case a family would cap out, that doesn't save the system any money. 
The family simply has to go find another job and an insurance provider, 
creating great duress. That doesn't make sense. Appropriately dealing 
with the problem of preexisting conditions. There have been a number of 
Americans who were priced out of the insurance market, who could not 
find affordable, quality insurance. And that's a real crack in our 
market system, so that it's necessary that public policy deal with 
that.

  But what we've gotten instead is a massive turning over of our entire 
health care system. It's creating havoc. Prices are going up. People 
aren't sure as to whether or not they can keep their doctor or their 
health care plan. Some people are experiencing unemployment as 
companies either don't expand or have to reduce numbers because they 
want to get under the threshold by which they have to provide health 
insurance for their employees. And some employees are having reduced 
hours. This is a very big problem.
  Another component of this is that the President and the 
administration have exempted certain entities. Recently, the 
implementation of the business demand that they provide health care has 
been delayed. It's really not fair because individuals are saying, if 
you can delay the business mandate, the corporate mandate, why not the 
individual mandate?
  The fullness of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, is coming into 
full force very shortly. So this is colliding as well with our 
budgetary discussion, and it's creating dramatic dynamics as we end the 
month here at the end of the fiscal year.
  The other aspect of this is called sequestration. A couple of years 
ago, we were in a very similar situation in which we were faced with 
raising the debt ceiling--and I'll return to that Washington phrase in 
a moment--or not. A special committee was set up to review the Tax Code 
and to review spending, and they were going to come up with a process 
by which there was a fair and balanced approach to spending and taxes 
going forward.
  But that supercommittee failed. The incentive for them to act in a 
constructive manner was something called ``sequestration,'' which is 
the implementation of automatic budget cuts, primarily affecting the 
defense of our country, and what we call nondefense discretionary 
spending.
  Nondefense discretionary spending is basically everything else the 
government does, other than the defense and veterans and retirement and 
health security programs--basically, Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid. So a third of the entire budget is what is being affected by 
sequestration, and many Members of Congress have seen the furloughs in 
their districts and cutbacks on vital programs.
  I think there's widespread support, particularly where I come from, 
on, again, ensuring that we have the right type of spending reductions 
while there is also a proper delivery of important essentials. We have 
to do this in a smart manner. The sequestration does it across the 
board. It's a very clumsy, awkward way to do this. It's not judicious. 
It's not using discretion. It's not taking the best judgment through 
our normal processes of considering a budget and appropriations bills 
and saying, that program may have been good at one time, but it no 
longer fits modern needs. Let's get rid of it and save that money and 
bring down spending or apply it to something new that's innovative that 
can really help people.
  That's what sequestration is doing. That's what it did this year. 
Because that supercommittee failed to meet its goal, there were 
automatic budgetary reductions put in place. They will continue unless, 
again, we can come to an agreement as to how we replace sequestration 
with a more prudent form of spending reduction that would hopefully be 
coupled, again, with the right type of tax reform.
  Let me talk about that fourth Washington phrase, those two words, the 
``debt ceiling.'' We used to never hear much about this. The debt 
ceiling was something that kind of came and went. Congress has to give 
the authority to the President to go out and borrow money. Usually, 
that was automatic; but because our debt has gotten so large, so 
severe, at $17 trillion, most Members of Congress are saying this is so 
severe that it demands creative thinking and bold resolve, or else we 
will undermine not only our economic well-being but also national 
security.
  Now, how so? What does $17 trillion of debt mean?
  Mr. Speaker, we are a people that self-governs. This debt is not 
sitting out there as somebody else's problem. It's America's problem. 
So if you divided it all up between every man, woman, and child in this 
country, every one of us would have to write a check for $53,000 in 
order to pay off the current debt.
  Now, that doesn't even consider the projection of debt in the future 
based

[[Page H5652]]

upon the way in which current spending programs are constructed. If we 
take the present value of the future obligations of programs as they 
are now written, the debt would so accelerate that each person in 
America right now, if nothing changes, would owe $300,000.
  Mr. Speaker, I have five children. There are seven of us in the 
family. Obviously, I can't afford a check to the government for $2.1 
million to take care of my share of this obligation; nor can most 
Americans. Something has to change. It will take bold resolve and 
constructive commitment to fair and balanced outcomes both on the 
spending side as well as the Tax Code ledger side.
  If we don't do this, Mr. Speaker, what are the consequences if we 
don't deal with this debt successfully? By the way, it can't be done 
overnight. It's too big. That would be too disruptive to do it 
overnight. But we have to set a pathway in which we are committed to 
seriously reducing this debt and getting the fiscal house in order, 
turning this battleship around.
  The consequences are really threefold if we don't. First of all, it's 
a form of future taxation. We're forcing the children of the future to 
pay for the way in which we're living now. It's fundamentally unjust, 
unfair.
  Secondly, a lot of this high level of debt is held by foreign 
countries such as China. What does that mean? That is a shift of the 
assets of this country--what we own--into the hands of other people. We 
get all worried that China is undertaking a military expansion. We've 
sent a heck of a lot of manufacturing over there, sent a lot of our 
economy over there. They make the stuff; we buy the stuff. They have 
the cash. We run up debt; they buy our debt.

                              {time}  1930

  It's a very dysfunctional marriage. But the consequences are, over 
time, that is a shift of what we own in this country into the hands of 
a place like China.
  And where does that money go? Well, there is a ruling elite that's 
doing pretty well there. There's a hybrid communist-capitalistic system 
that doesn't seem to be very interested in the notion of private 
property rights and human rights, doesn't seem to be advancing very 
fast in this regard.
  So this economic liberalization, you would hope, over time would help 
bring about the focus on fundamental human rights and human dignity. 
But it has certainly empowered a wealthy elite, and it's being plowed 
back into military infrastructure buildup.
  So our debt is a national security problem. Because we hear that the 
Chinese, for instance, are expanding their navy, expanding their 
nuclear arsenal. So what is our response? We'll send more ships into 
the Pacific.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, there is also a response that needs to be had and 
that we need to work diligently and quickly and boldly with clear 
resolve, ideally in a bipartisan manner because this is an American 
problem. This really isn't about politics, Mr. Speaker. This is about 
principle. This is about participation in the future welfare of our 
country, regaining our balance, regaining our strength. This should 
transcend the partisan political divide. We'll have a big debate about, 
again, what are the appropriate areas to reduce and what's the right 
type of tax balance. Fine. But we should all be committed to getting to 
this goal to quickly reverse this trend, which has severe economic and 
national security consequences.
  The third problem with all this debt is it's potentially 
inflationary. Now, we have a very expansive liquidity policy going on 
right now, basically buying up our debt. The consequences over time 
could be a further unleashing of inflationary impacts, which is a form 
of taxation, a regressive form of taxation. It hits the poor the 
hardest, those who are on fixed incomes, seniors the hardest. It is 
grossly unfair. People who are not in a position in life to adjust 
prices, if you will, and so that creates a further form of taxation on 
those who are least able to handle it.
  So this is why, Mr. Speaker, this debt problem is so severe. We're 
bumping up in the near term against this debt ceiling limit. Now, 
again, what does that mean?
  Congress has to give the administration authority to borrow more 
money. Now, the last time we did this, we actually reduced spending by 
more than an amount that we borrowed. That was the plan, again, trying 
to get to this in a manner that is not disruptive but actually begins 
to reduce the spending in a necessary fashion by more than the amount 
that we continue to borrow. It's a slow walk toward a better situation.
  We may end up there now, I don't know, but this is one of these 
dynamics that's sitting out there, along with the continuing 
resolution, the future of health care in this country, called 
ObamaCare, the sequestration, dealing with these automatic cuts if we 
don't figure out a constructive way to budget and to appropriate. And 
then the debt ceiling, in which we have to have a plan to basically 
continue to pull down this very, very large burdensome debt and all of 
its economic as well as national security consequences. Mr. Speaker, we 
must do this, and we must do it now.
  So I would urge all of my colleagues, let's transcend the partisan 
divide here. We're going to have differences. We all come from 
districts with particular perspectives. We have different philosophical 
ideas as to how to approach government. Some people want more 
investment at the Federal level. Those of us who believe in the sole 
principle called subsidiarity, where those closest to a problem or 
opportunity should be empowered to solve the problem or seize the 
opportunity--Federalism, as it used to be known. That has been the 
robust way in which America gained such economic prowess in the world 
and was a leader and continues to be a leader for so many people who 
desire the nature of a system like ours that is rooted in this cultural 
ideal that each person has inherent dignity and rights and also has 
responsibility--even responsibility--for government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have quite a bit of drama, I'm 
afraid, in the coming days and weeks. Let's hope it doesn't add 
cynicism to the deepening cynicism toward our institution. People in 
America have entrusted us to represent them, to make judgments on their 
behalf. I think most people in America want something constructive 
done, something that's fair, that's not done in an emergency, 11th-hour 
scenario, that doesn't disrupt economic well-being because it's either 
too dramatic or too harsh or done at the last minute, that takes a 
little bit longer view, gets past the politics of the moment and takes 
a longer view as to what's right and good for America.
  Mr. Speaker, the people who came behind us, who sacrificed so much to 
build what we have, don't they deserve our best? Don't they deserve a 
commitment to these higher ideals? Because our economic well-being is 
tied to our ability to work constructively and creatively together to 
get this fiscal house together, to get it on the right track, to 
appropriately reduce spending while also delivering smart public 
policies that are effective in helping people across this country, that 
revitalizes our economic strength, that takes the duress off of 
communities where people can't find jobs and can't find work, that 
creates a fairer Tax Code that's less convoluted, that's a little bit 
simpler, where you don't have to have an army of lawyers and 
accountants to figure out ways around it. That's what we ought to be 
focused on. That's what we need to get done. That's what I think our 
people are demanding from us.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts 
with you and my colleagues.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________